The attempts to acquire Cuba

In the earlier days Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, and other farsighted statesmen had coveted Cuba and regarded its annexation to the United States as only a question of time. Down to the Mexican War our fear was that Cuba might be annexed by England or France and our policy was to guarantee the possession of the island to Spain. Clay declared as secretary of state in 1825 that we could not consent to the occupation of Cuba or Porto Rico "by any other European power than Spain under any contingency whatever," and Daniel Webster in 1843, while occupying the same post, assured Spain that in any attempt to wrest Cuba from her "she might securely rely upon the whole naval and military resources of this country to aid her in preserving or recovering it."

After the Mexican War American foreign policy assumed a much more aggressive character, and Cuba became an object of desire not only to the slaveholding population of the South, but to a large part of the nation, on account of its strategic importance, lying athwart the Gulf of Mexico and commanding also the now important interoceanic canal routes. Between the Mexican and Civil wars, therefore, repeated efforts were made to purchase the island from Spain. In 1848 Secretary Buchanan offered Spain $100,000,000 for Cuba, but the offer was indignantly rejected.

The failure of the purchase scheme was followed by the filibustering expeditions of General Lopez in 1850 and 1851, in which many Americans participated. Lopez was finally captured and executed by the Spanish authorities and about fifty Americans were summarily shot without a trial. When news of these executions reached New Orleans a mob attacked and sacked the Spanish consulate. These incidents naturally caused strained relations between the two governments.

President Pierce announced in his inaugural address that the policy of his administration would "not be controlled by any timid forebodings of evil from expansion." The "OsThis was taken to refer to Cuba; and the ap- tend Manipointment as minister to Spain of Pierre Soulé festo," 1854 of Louisiana, a Frenchman by birth and education, who had been exiled for political reasons, created an unfavorable impression in this country and abroad, for his views on the Cuban question were well known to be of a radical character. Shortly after Soulé's arrival at Madrid the two countries were brought to the verge of war by the seizure in Havana harbor of the Black Warrior, an American ship charged with a technical violation of the port regulations. The ship and cargo were subsequently restored, but the overzealous handling of the incident by Soulé rendered any further negotiations for the purchase of Cuba by him utterly useless.

Under these circumstances Marcy directed Soulé to confer with Mason and Buchanan, our ministers at Paris and London. The three ministers met at Ostend, a watering place in Belgium, in October, 1854, and drew up a report to Marcy which was subsequently made public and became known as the "Ostend Manifesto." They advised that the United States offer Spain a fair price for Cuba, suggesting $100,000,000, and in case of her refusal to sell, that the United States should seize the island, if the welfare and safety of the Union demanded it. Marcy politely but firmly repudiated the recommendations of the report, and Soulé promptly resigned. The manifesto had, however, the desired effect of helping to secure for James Buchanan the Democratic nomination for the presidency in 1856.

Meanwhile the fugitive slave law had created such intense opposition in the North that it was found practically impossible to enforce it. The "Underground Railroad" was very active in the fifties and thousands of slaves were being

Failure of

enticed away from their masters over into the free States. When pursued and arrested they were with increasing frequency rescued from the hands of the officers of the fugitive the law and concealed or sent on to Canada. slave law In one case that arose in Boston, Federal troops had to be sent to the scene in order to enable an owner to reclaim a runaway slave. Most of the Northern States nullified the fugitive slave law by the enactment of "per

STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.

sonal liberty" laws, which gave fugitive slaves the right to jury trials.

The fugitive slave law was considered a vital part of the Compromise of 1850 and public men of both the North and the South had asserted that upon its faithful execution depended the life of the Union. In a speech at Capon Springs, Virginia, June 28, 1851, Daniel Webster said: "I have not hesitated to say, and I repeat, that if the Northern States refuse, wilfully and deliberately, to carry into effect that part of the Constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, and Congress provide no remedy, the South would no longer be bound to observe the compact." Every time a runaway slave was arrested and rescued by a mob hundreds of converts were made to the antislavery cause. Men were beginning to fear that after all the Compromise was not a finality, when the whole question was suddenly reopened in Congress by Stephen A. Douglas in a bill which he proposed for the organization of the territory of Nebraska.

The vast region extending from Missouri and Iowa to the Rockies, which went under the name of Nebraska, had never been organized and was still occupied by Indians.

It was now proposed to remove the Indian tribes from a portion of this territory and open it up to settlers. The whole of Nebraska was north of the Missouri Compro- The Kansasmise line and according to that agreement Nebraska Bill, 1854 slavery was forever excluded, but Douglas now declared that a new principle had been adopted in the Compromise of 1850, that is, the principle of popular sovereignty. He therefore questioned the validity of the Missouri Compromise and provided in a bill which he introduced January 4, 1854, that the territory of Nebraska, or any portion of the same, when admitted as a State or States, "shall be received into the Union with or without slavery, as their constitutions may prescribe at the time of their admission." On January 16 Dixon, a Whig senator from Kentucky who was filling Clay's unexpired term, offered an amendment providing in express terms for the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. Douglas at first objected to the amendment, but after conferring with Dixon he finally decided to embody it in his bill.

So far Douglas had not consulted any of the Southern leaders, but on Sunday, January 22, he called on Jefferson Davis and got him to accompany him to the White House. The matter was discussed at length with President Pierce and he finally gave his approval to the bill. On the following day Douglas offered as a substitute for his first bill one which expressly repealed the Missouri Compromise and provided for the organization of two territories instead of one, Kansas and Nebraska. The evident purpose was to make one State slave and the other free.

In support of his measure Douglas said: "The legal effect of this bill is neither to legislate slavery into these territories nor out of them, but to leave the people The debate to do as they please. If they wish slavery, they on the bill have a right to it. If they do not want it, they will not have it, and you should not force it upon them." While Sumner,

Wade, and Seward made able speeches against the bill, Chase's speech established him at once as the leader of the antislavery forces. The bill passed the Senate March 4 by a vote of 37 to 14 and the House May 22 by a vote of 113 to 100. The vote in the House showed the extent to which the measure threatened the disruption of both political parties. The Southern Democrats were solidly for the bill and the Northern Whigs solidly against it, but the Northern Democrats were divided, 44 for and 42 against, and the Southern Whigs were also divided, 12 for and 7 against. Many writers have expressed the opinion that but for the repeal of the Missouri Compromise the Civil War would not have taken place. While this is probably an extreme view, it is undoubtedly true that the Kansas-Nebraska Act introduced a new phase of the slavery conflict which led straight to the Civil War. Douglas, a Northern Democrat, was responsible for the measure. It was his personal influence that carried it through

Douglas's motives

Congress. What was his motive and what end. did he have in view? The most usual answer to this question has been that it was a direct bid to the Southern Democrats for the presidential nomination, which Douglas undoubtedly coveted. Recent writers have, however, advanced another explanation. The question of a transcontinental railroad was being much discussed at this time and there was great rivalry over the choice of a route. The Gadsden Purchase had opened the way for a road to California along the route later followed by the Southern Pacific, and Jefferson Davis as secretary of war sent a corps of engineers into the field and had this route surveyed. This route would of course be a great boon to Memphis and New Orleans. St. Louis and Chicago, on the other hand, wanted. the road built west through the Nebraska territory, and the best way to secure the adoption of that route seemed to be to remove the Indians from that territory and open it up as speedily as possible to settlers. The Southern